Hi Vincent,
At 23:10 08-04-10, Vincent Ngundi wrote:
I would recommend that we have a "definitions section" in SM's
proposal that defines the various variants of "community".
I'll comment on this below.
Yes, that is correct, the clarification is contained in the TOR. But
I guess we can make this more clearer in the main PDP document.
I'll make the change in Section 4.
> Section 2.2 uses "member of the community" for
> proposals.
That refers to the global Internet community. Again, we may need to
be more explicit in the PDP.
I think that this could be left to Section 3 where it is explicitly
stated that policies are developed openly.
> Section 2.3 mentions that this mailing list is "open to
> anyone from the community".
Again, that refers to the global Internet community.
I used "Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person" for
proposal discussions. That also covers the mailing list.
> Section 2.5 uses "before the community
> endorses or rejects" for the face to face meeting. That would be
> AfriNIC community.
That would be any member of the global Internet community present at
an AfriNIC face-to-face public policy meeting. We don't want to
develop AfriNIC policy in seclusion.
Again, I recommend that we have a "definitions section" in SM's
proposal that defines the various variants of "community" and any
other relevant definitions.
This raises the question of how to define "AfriNIC
community". According to the AfriNIC website, AfriNIC "serves the
African Internet Community". AfriNIC is a Regional Internet Registry
(RIR). It uses the term "AfriNIC service region" to define the
region. We can view the AfriNIC community as anyone; i.e. anyone who
has an interest can participate. As you said above, AfriNIC policies
are not developed in seclusion. Anyone present at an AfriNIC
face-to-face meeting is part of the AfriNIC community unless the
person expresses the wish not to be part of the community. :-)
If we have to come up with a definition, we would have to discuss
about whether the community is only open to people within the AfriNIC
service region. Having qualifications in a document about policy
development can be a problem. If anyone wants to suggest text for
such a definition, I'll add it to the draft or else I'll leave it to
AfriNIC to define that in its materials.
We are saying the same thing in different words for Section 2.5
(existing PDP). Section 3 of the proposal could be reworded as follows:
All policies are developed by the Internet community following
three principles: openness, transparency and fairness. The
community initiates and discusses the proposals. If consensus
is reached on the draft policy, it is recommended to the
AfriNIC Board of Directors for adoption as a policy.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
